MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  26 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000036536

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Baxter		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be removed; that his Reentry Eligibility (RE) code be changed; that he be promoted to the rank sergeant first class (SFC); that he be credited with 20 years active Federal service; that he be retired as an SFC with 20 years of service, and that he receive back pay from the date of his separation until his retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not informed of his appeal rights or options. He had some personality conflicts with his chain of command but he was a devoted soldier and loyal to his superiors.  He was always told that his job performance was outstanding.  He submits copies of his military record in support of his application.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He reenlisted and entered active duty in pay grade E-5 on 21 May 1981 with 4 years prior service.  He was promoted to pay grade E-6 effective 26 May 1982.

On 15 January 1992, the Department informed him that a bar to reenlistment had been imposed under the QMP based on a review of his file by the 1991 SFC Promotion/Selection Board.  A list of the documents indicating his areas of deficiency was provided to him.  On 14 February 1992 he acknowledged receipt of counseling concerning his bar to reenlistment.  The counseling form included information on how to appeal the action and was also signed by the battalion commander.

Also in the available record is a statement of options form signed by the applicant and the battalion commander on 19 February 1992.  On Part A of the form are the applicant’s initials where he elected not to appeal the action and understood that he would be separated within 90 days.

The three enlisted efficiency reports (EER’s) identified during the QMP process mentioned that the applicant had shown inexperience under pressure; had family and personal problems that affected his performance and participation in field training; did not accomplish assigned tasks; and displayed poor judgment.

Two additional EER’s in the available record, but not listed as part of the QMP action, also fault his performance.  While a drill sergeant in 1984 it was noted that he let his personal life interfere with his military duties, resented authority, and had become totally unreliable.  As an infantry squad leader it was noted that he had to work on his self-discipline when dealing with superiors and often questioned the chain of command.

The applicant’s records do show that he successfully completed the required course work expected of an infantry NCO, drill sergeant school, airborne school, numerous certificates and letters of appreciation, and several awards of the Army Commendation Medal.

Effective 1 April 1992 the applicant was separated in pay grade E-6 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8 reduction in strength qualitative early transition program.  He had 14 years, 10 months, and 11 days creditable active service and 1 year, 11 months and 3 days prior Reserve service.  Block 27 (RE Code) of his separation document (DD Form 214) shows a 4.

Army Regulation 601-280 provides the policy for the Total Army Retention Program.  Chapter 10 sets forth the policy for QMP and is designed to selectively retain the best qualified soldiers and deny reenlistment to nonprogressive soldiers who are identified as failing to meet Army standards.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of enlisted soldiers.  Paragraph 16-8 provides for the separation prior to the soldier’s expiration of term of service (ETS) based on required reduction in enlisted strength.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service.  Certain persons who have received bars to reenlistment under the QMP are so disqualified.

Army Regulation 635-5 provides for the preparation of separation documents including the DD Form 214.  Table 2-3 shows that the applicant’s reason for separation only authorizes a RE code of 4.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was appropriately separated from active duty in accordance with regulations.  There is no evidence of error or injustice in his bar to reenlistment and subsequent separation.

2.  There is sufficient evidence of record to show that the applicant was properly counseled and advised of his rights concerning the QMP action.  He chose not to appeal the bar and there is no evidence in the available record that he requested a commander’s inquiry or appealed the EER’s that formed the basis for his bar to reenlistment.
3.  There is no basis for the applicant’s reconsideration or promotion to SFC; providing 20 years of creditable active duty; retirement as a SFC, or entitlement to back pay.

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 was properly annotated with reentry code RE-4. Applicable regulations show that the correct RE code based on the reason for his separation was RE-4.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ao___  __tb____  __mm____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036536	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000926	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.09	
2.	134.00	
3.	136.02	
4.		
5.		
6.